click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20130318
20130326
Search Results 0 to 22 of about 23
to keep the government funded through september avoiding a shutdown but keeping in place the sequester. explain to us how the government funding will work thund bill. guest: they are able to continue funding government past the march 37 deadline. it was a very fine line they had to walk. republicans weren't going to sign off on something that redid the cr but there are a number of republicans who were trying to get piece of the sequester reinstated. so as a result they put together a package, a compromise mostly came together in the senate, both side working together that restores some of the funding but fleeves place a lot of the other cuts. air traffic control towers still going to see problems. other places fur lowses will still happen. meat inspec tors spared the action a little bit. we are all making a bill big deal about the budget this week because in regular order there is a budget, there are appropriation bills and this is how government functions. in the last few years they haven't done that. without it government would have shut down. host: we are talking with ginger gibson.
after the commission. as a limited government person i do not think we should stay in positions forever, but at the wee time i love my job and have a lot important work to do. >> this past week, commissioner robert mcdowell and chairman julius czajkowski announced their resignations from the fcc. hear more on monday night from "the communicators," at 8:00 eastern on c-span 2. >> wednesday, british chancellor torch osborne unveiled the government's proposed tax and spending plans to members of the british house of commons. he told members 600,000 more jobs will be added this year according to forecasters. corporation tax will be cut to 20%, the lowest tax rate than any other economy in the world. in his one-hour speech, chancellor osborne announced measures aimed at assisting small business owners, first- time homebuyers, and british veterans. this is about an hour and 15 minutes. mr. deputy speaker, this is a budget for people who aspire to work hard and get on. it's a budget for people who realise there are no easy answers to problems built up over many years. just the painst
's consider working together on areas to change how the government does business and give more value to the taxpayer while we get spending under control. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia, mr. arrow, for five minutes. mr. barrow: mr. speaker, i rise today to urge my colleagues to join me in support of house joint resolution 33 which would reshape the way washington operates. because congress has failed to do its job to find the spending cuts we need to replace the sequester, folks all across this country, including folks in my district in georgia, will pay the price. unfortunately in washington there are rules that prevent members of congress from being penalized for not doing their jobs. the constitution doesn't protect the folks at home so why should it protect the pay of members of congress? the 27th amendment of the constitution was written to prevent members of congress from giving themselves pay increases, but lately it's been used as a shield to prevent a congressional pay cut. my proposal, house joint resolutio
on the pump. we also realize between the state and federal government a lot of us are paying 40-plus cents a gallon to build the road that we're wearing out with the gas we put in. that's a user's fee. when i came here and break this down and asked the question, of tax/user rth of gas fee, 18.3 cents a gallon, $1 of that, how much of that actually goes into roads and bridges? and i'll tell you it adds up like this -- then we reduce it a little bit on this number. three cents out of that dollar went for trails for bike trails, snowmobile trails and that sort of thing. 3%. there was a one time $16 million in one of our appropriation bills to do -- to clean graffiti off of the walls, retaining walls in new jersey. and i thought, can't they get their prisoners out there with a wire brush to do that? and 28% going for environmental arciological -- interest, looking for arrowheads and endangered species. can't somebody pay for that rather than the people driving on the roads? when you add davis-bacon to that, another 20%, 22%, so you have 3% for trails, you have 28% for our achepologicl and env
do hussein was removed, for sure. at the government level, the strategic agreement is still in place, but it would not be wrong to say that the government of see at the moment does not the american presence or influence as an integral part of its political calculation. it was a few years ago when political decisions were taken. they always factored in what the americans fought and that was certainly true. you probably remember when your the ambassador to baghdad. i do not think that is the situation now. i would even ventured to say that there is more wait for what the iranian regime things about political decisions in iraq, whether it is forming a cabinet any other major political decision. thathat does not mean americans have lost all possible influence. i think americans still have a considerable amount of soft power. i think they should use it not only with the government, and they are actually using it, to be fair, in support of civil society. i think in supporting the segment of population who are secular in their outlook, who believe that the separation of religion from the st
and believe in because that is the american dream. not government spending and government jobs. but rather a vibrant free enterprise system whereby there are employers who want to hire people to become employees to have careers, to then make this country better and stronger. the way you do that is by lowering government spending. by having a public-private partnership not by having the federal government be responsible for everything from a one-size-fits all health care industry to government control of every part of our lives. yesterday paul ryan very effectively, i believe, came before the house rules committee nd talked about a vision forward. what's very interesting is everybody else talked about let's just stick it to the rich. let's raise taxes trillions of dollars. let's go and stick it to special interests like people who he provide gasoline at the pump. to raise taxes on oil companies. ladies and gentlemen, every time you raise taxes, you raise prices. and every time you race -- raise prices the consumer has to pay more for it. these are the ideas that make america less able to be
putting members on the government payroll. little traction has gained despite high-profile controversies. as i mentioned earlier, a saide ago, jesse jackson kim my wife's company work for the campaign? opinion was that yes, she can, unless -- as long as certain things are met. we know jesse jackson pled guilty to misusing thousands of dollars in campaign funds for personal use. he clearly lost -- crossed the line. i think people are starting to think, maybe we should once again revisit what is happening, where is the line was -- with personal use? a few years earlier, there was a lot of scrutiny when the california sensitive -- , his wife'sve company was getting a 50% commission for his campaign. .- 15% commission people got caught up in the larger investigation into the lobbying scandal. he was never formally charged with wrongdoing, but that was an episode where people said earning commissions, is that appropriate? ?ost: what was the end result guest: nothing has changed. it is still legal. the whole compensation system is determined by the member of congress and his employees. or her
and this government, not very cordial. imbued with a lot of tension. a lot coming back from the community of nations they have not really a implemented. i would say that it is all because of a constitution that failed the entire public at large. basically taking segments of society and addressing themselves to them. host: this unannounced trip that you just indicated in iraq, these officials with the president on his trip, the associated press pointed out that there were a series of meetings over flights. iran says that this is humanitarian aid and that syria is getting the weapons or else. guest: a whole concern, as the israelis feel that regardless of everything going on, they look to the north and in syria they see it disintegrating. weapons are flowing into the regime of the time. if we discussed the threat to iran stabilizing, weapons would also be a threat to the united states and its interest in the region. host: independent line, florida, welcome to the program. caller: welcome, gentlemen. i would like to posit, if i may, we are talking about netanyahu and israeli intransigence when it comes
even passed, the senate democrats' proposal leaves more debt and government that never stops growing. after four years, the democrats are unable to identify any real reforms, no tax reform and no entitlement reform and it's not a serious proposal. i stand again in support of the house budget because it's responsible, it's real, it balances in 10 years and it's the last thing from political. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland. van vanch you know -- mr. van hollen: you know what's wrong, mr. chairman? it's to pretend to the american people that you can have it all ways. what's wrong is to pretend that you have a budget that's imbalance in 10 years and pretend that you're getting rid all of the affordable care act, getting rid of obamacare. what's wrong is demagogging savings in medicare which we achieved by ending payments to private companies. by demagogging that and using it to balance your budget and say you know what? we didn't use it to balance our budget. that's what people don't like. people trying to have
they are eating a larger portion of americans' paychecks and the government's budget. if we continue on our current path, the medicare trust fund will be insolvent by 2024. and medicare and medicaid will grow from 24% of the federal budget to almost 30%, crowding out other needed investments. we have to reduce health care costs in both the private sector and public sector in order to ensure america remains competitive in a global market, but there is a right way to reform our health care system and there is a wrong way. with all due respect, mr. ryan's path is the wrong way. mr. ryan's plan for medicare and medicaid misses the point. his solution simply shifts the costs from government to patients rather than reducing health care costs. under the ryan budget, seniors would pay as much as $1,200 more each year by 2030 and $6,000 more by 2050. for over half of medicare beneficiaries with incomes less than $21,000, a $1,200 increase is a huge piece of their budget. he also proposes block granting medicaid, which would cut medicaid funding by approximately $700 billion over the next decade and
taxes taken out of the pockets of hardworking american families, more government spending which adds to the trillions of dollars in debt that will be handed down to the next generation. our friends on the other side of the aisle talk about a balanced approach, but they refuse to even balance their own budget. our vision calls for a stop to washington's failed policies and reckless spending. it says american families and small businesses understand you can't spend more than you take in. you need to balance your budget, and it's time for washington to do the same. this vision seeks to protect the things that we value most, to keep the promises we made to our seniors, to our veterans. i'm the son of a u.s. marine. while at the same time allowing us to leave a better future for our kids and our grandkids, that's the vision i want to work toward and that's why i'm proud to support the house budget committee's proposal which we'll be voting on later this week. this isn't about passing a budget for one year, just one time. this is about creating lasting solutions that help grow our economy
, no american business can do this, no government can do this without bringing on a debt crisis that is sure to imperil the future of our kids and grandkids. vote for the ryan budget. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. who seeks time? mr. van hollen: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from maryland reserves his time. mr. ryan: i reserve the time since i have the right to close. we have no more speakers. the chair: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for 3 1/2 minutes. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker -- mr. chairman. i'm going to urge our colleagues to vote against this republican budget for a variety of reasons. first of all, this is an uncompromising ideological approach to our budget issues. we've just been through a major national campaign. where both presidential candidates, president obama, governor romney, agreed on one thing and that was that the people of this country faced a fundamental choice in the direction we were going to take. and the american people voted and they resoundedly rejected the approach that is now taken
that engine that they used in the campaign and make it work for them and governing. when they made their press transscripts available on the record, the press secretary james haggard was very interested in getting things out directly. he said in one of his diary entries, to hell with reporters, we'll go directly to the people. those have to do with what the president is doing inside the white house, and then that information spreads. so you can have smgs like "the huffington post" thinking i could simply go around them in the white house press corps is irrelevant. it remains very relevant. >> the white house issues a photograph of the president in any setting, but it is only a society photo. are news organizations becoming reluctant to use that photo? >> it is really quite the opposite. they have started picking up that image on flicker. what you see is the white house photographer is there to photograph the president, not the presidency, not what's happening in the white house, but solely the president. and i think that that really limits what the public knows. >> martha joynt kumar, the aut
than the government takes in. continue os soned -- to spend more money than washington takes in, and the people of this great country understand we can't continue going down this road over and over and over. a couple of points that mr. scott made regarding the republican budget which is the budget that is the base budget here that we're bringing to the floor that in fact does get to balance in a responsible way. it saves an strengthens and secures medicare as opposed to the misinformation that was provided by the other side. it makes certain that states have the kind of flexibility so they're able to provide the highest quality of health care to their medicaid population. it doesn't, as a matter of fact, address in a specific way the issue of social security because it provides for a reserve fund so that's able to be addressed in a more specific way through the committee structure which is also the important thing to recognize about the issue of tacks. our friends on the other side are specific about what they accuse us of regarding tax bus as you know, mr. chairman, it's the wa
their wages and trusted in their government that they would be taken care of. medicare is the most efficient health plan in our country. it has a 2% overhead. let me repeat that. it's a 2% overhead, more efficient than any private plan. the problem isn't medicare. the problem is the rising cost of health care. and what is it that we have to get under control? it's a cost that's gone up exponentially in our country compared to the rest of the world. republicans want to do nothing about the real problem of rising costs. rather than tackle the hard issue, they want to shift the costs onto seniors. people like my mom. she's 96 right now, and she depends on that important program. six years ago she had to be checked up for a heart condition, and she had an an rism below her die -- an uerism below her diaphragm. they said it would be difficult to solve, not get a stint because of her age, and she was 70. well, a few years later that anyeurism became larger and was told if nothing was done she would die and the doctors looked at her again and noticed that at the advanced age of 90 she walked around
or a scholarship? can you get a government job if you hold this position that is suddenly declared bigotry? it would be very contentious and divisive process. i agree that it might well play out in a very different way in the role it has played out. >> audience, next chance for questions. >> wow. >> let me get this out there. whalen, get the sense from seeing the amount of young people in the room that he may be in the minority, just guessing. i am glad you here. young people do not see what is the issue. that said some people may even say what is the big deal about getting married but that is another radical thing i will i get into. >> we'll have 10 minutes. >> you talked a lot about tradition and a radical notion. how does this relate to the loving versus virginia? my question is for paul smith. what is the primary purpose of the petrol government incentivizing marriage in the first place for anyone? if same-sex couples can show they're able to fulfil the purpose, what a special or unique about same-sex relationships that should preclude the federal government from incentivizing any and
to defend an existing discriminatory regime which means it is really a government paying to defend these discriminatory laws. it is e minority groups seeking to challenge it, even though on paper it may look like they are raising a lot of money. in their own cases, it is their own money and it is not tax deductible. sylvester both mcmonkey mcbean anthe star- part of aeetches are privileged class. the analogy in the case of mass incarceration, the privileged class of folks who are not as worried at about being incarcerated. middle toe iddle to -- upper class, wealthy, white, you're not as worried about being stopped, frist, incarcerated but there are groups that benefit even more among the privileged class. i think about the corporate contract that provides prisons with all the have. everybody from victoria's secret to dell computers havhad private contract in prison that benefit from the prison complex. there is a certain group within the privileged class that benefit financially. in many00 cases to keep one person incarcerated. we all live in a state of fear so we opted that cost
. guest: the federal government provided for electrification to rural areas because it was deemed a necessity. just like water service was built out and provided to rural areas, electricity was provided, and now communications services that serve the public interest. that is the mandate they wrote into law to guide the fcc. is it in the public interest for people in rural areas to hospital, their local government services, family members, and others? the fcc is under both republican and democratic chairman have said yes, it is. host: on twitter -- are there steps you can give about where this program is most use? and the roleline internet connections? on the fcc website, the their reports on all these programs a go into great detail about where they're provided, how much, and where. universalder the service administrative company and their required to disclose where and who gets the service. that is how they have found out through these reforms, that there were a number people getting the service who were not qualified. as withgo to fcc.ogv, oft things, and the pages material and
it will hit into governing. they have not been able to make it work for them, for governing. but every president in a modern period has wanted to go around the white house press corps. in the eisenhower administration, when they made their press conference transcripts on the record in 1953 and on television in 1955, the press secretary was interested in getting things out directly. in one of his diary entries he said, we will go directly to the people. that has repeated itself from one administration to the next. the white house press corps continues to be important because those are the people on the ground writing about what it is the president is doing about the policies that he is initiating and what is going on within the white house. that information spreads. you can have something like the huffington post that will be pushing up articles that are in the new york times. i would be wary in thinking i could simply go around them as the white house press corps is irrelevant. it remains relevant. guest: they have more tools than they ever did before. the white house has its own tv re
-local veterans version of 4 square, but requires cooperation from the federal and state government, which has turned out to be tremendously cumbersome. at the root of this issue a transition our three core tenants. our group can provide all three a new and exciting mission. create newmpting to offline communities through an innovative tool. thank you for your time. >> thank you very much. thee is a team leader of veterans outreach program. >> chairman sanders, members of your committee, thank you for this invitation to discuss the vermont veterans outreach program. time there my team has conducted assessment surveys of over 4200 veterans to discuss the needs -- their needs and the needs of their families. it has evolved and expanded beyond its original mandate. we now also assist service members through wartime conflicts. one of the reasons the outreach program has been so successful is the grass roots slighting their feet under the kitchen tables way of doing business. we will go to the home of the veteran and work with them to find what they really need. the issues raised through health car
of government employees, and the federal law enforcement officers association be put into the record. good afternoon. after september 11, zero planes have been taken down by sharp objects, or were sharp objects could have been used. there have been zero times as well. >> there was one attempted hijacking internationally. domestically, there have been zero attempts. internationally, in 2009, a hijacking attempt with a plastic knife. >> also of zero major staffing issues with sharp objects. >> 0 that i am aware of. >> that begs the question, when we look at the number of times or successes that have taken place involving sharp objects post-9/11, the answer is that there have been a zero. can that number get better? the answer is no. it also begs the question, can that get worse? for me, the answer is yes. objects being a sharp on board now accomplish the goal of maintaining the zero planes being taken over or have been zero incidents involving sharp objects? i also understand, administrator pistol, that the shift towards a --k-based risk assessment just because this is a new threat does not
the government step out of this marketplace and can them mortgage market be supported without any government involvement? that is not what i anticipate. it is not what i have an expecting war would like to see. single-family mortgage market in the united states is $10 trillion. i do not expect the outcome to be that all of it is done by private capital without government environment -- involvement. is moved towards the government having most of the responsibility in the mortgage market. it has moved in the last five years. we have to start moving that dial away from government and away from taxpayers and back towards more private capital participation. $10 trillion, and there is a lack of space. we can make that progress and have a vibrant role for government. i suggested that in thinking where that government role should be, it should the constructive for congress to begin with the traditional explicit government guarantee such as the fha program and the va program. those exist to provide guarantees. let us figure out where can preserve the market and what is left and what the government ne
to their desperation and fear of telling their parents. let's not endanger our children and place government against our grandmothers. please vote "no." and, mr. president, i raise a point of order that the pending amendment is not germane to the underlying resolution. it, therefore, violates section 305-b-2 of the congressional budget act of 1974. mr. rubio: mr. chairman? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. rubio: i move to waive the rules with regard to the applicable portions of the act and i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:
Search Results 0 to 22 of about 23